1. The branch of finger print is now a highly developed and technical subject. The classification of finger prints is a science requiring much study and specialization in the subject. Therefore, a finger print expert is in a more advantageous position to compare finger prints and point out similarities or dis-similarities between two impressions by critical examination of the impressions. This was recognised by amendment of section 45 of the Evidence Act in 1899, making opinion of finger print expert relevant as was the case with medical and handwriting experts. Section 73 of the Act was also suitably amended, enabling taking of specimen thumb impressions for comparison. Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was amended in 1955 to make the report of the Director of Finger Print Bureau admissible, under that section. It is settled that when neither the Court nor the prosecution or the accused filed any application to summon and examine the finger print expert as to the subject matter of his report, no objection can be taken at the appellate stage by the accused against his non-examination. Majority of the High Courts have found that it cannot be laid down as a rule of law that it is unsafe to have conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of a finger print expert. The true rule seems to be one of caution. The Court cannot delegate its authority to the expert but has to satisfy itself as to the value to be given to the evidence of the expert in the same way as to the value given to any other evidence. The reasons given by the expert in arriving at the conclusion are ultimately to be weighed by the Court and satisfy itself about the correctness of the conclusion by comparison of the prints. The task of the Court becomes much easier when the finger print expert has taken enlarged photo prints of the disputed and specimen finger prints and marked the distinct points of similarities. Otherwise it becomes an uphill task to examine each and every individual prints with magnifying glass when there are large number of prints. If the enlarged photo prints are kept side by side and their markings compared, it becomes much easier to follow the reasoning of the finger print expert about points of similarities or dissimilarities and judge the correctness of the conclusion Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1975 SC 905, Emperor v. Sahdeo, 3 NLR 1, relied on. Appeal dismissed.